Lurch, a.k.a. Hanoi Kerry, demonstrated his historic ability to negotiate a clever deal with “our” “moderate” Iranian “friends.”
One of Iran’s principal demands was that her “right to enrichment” be recognized. Only minor constraints have been imposed. Here is a relevant portion of the English language text of the “deal. The balance of the text is also available at the link. I would be quite interested in a well nuanced translation of the text in other languages, but haven’t found one. There are sometimes substantive differences among different translations.
The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons. This comprehensive solution would build on these initial measures and result in a final step for a period to be agreed upon and the resolution of concerns. This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein. This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme. This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This comprehensive solution would involve a reciprocal, step-by- step process, and would produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions, as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme.
There would be additional steps in between the initial measures and the final step, including, among other things, addressing the UN Security Council resolutions, with a view toward bringing to a satisfactory conclusion the UN Security Council’s consideration of this matter. The E3+3 and Iran will be responsible for conclusion and implementation of mutual near-term measures and the comprehensive solution in good faith. A Joint Commission of E3/EU+3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of the near-term measures and address issues that may arise, with the IAEA responsible for verification of nuclear-related measures. The Joint Commission will work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern.
As many holes as Swiss Cheese? Let’s leave that aside now for further study, ignore the U.S. position and Secretary Kerry’s comment that “the accord does not recognize Iran’s ‘right’ to enrich uranium” and also ignore the following:
The Iranians themselves are trumpeting the fact that, in practice, the West has accepted their “right” to enrich uranium, and officials in Washington have commented on record to the effect that it is not “realistic” to expect, even in a further accord, that Iran will agree to zero enrichment.
We might as well also ignore Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov agreement with the Iranian position that the deal recognizes Iran’s “right” to enrichment.
Leaving all of that aside, what does the highlighted text in the “deal” about a “mutually defined enrichment programme” mean? How could that not recognize Iran’s “right” to enrichment? With the sort of final agreement apparently contemplated by the present deal entered into by P5+1 — the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany — any hope for rejection by the U.N. Security Council of Iran’s “right” to enrichment is illusory.
The deal’s framework permits continued enrichment — not merely to 3.5% but to 5% — while negotiations over the details continue. Lesser enrichment to 3.5% had been thought sufficient to allow the production of weapons-grade Uranium (20%) quickly and easily. Will further enrichment to 5% make that more difficult? Perhaps in a land where happy unicorns frolic, but not in Iran.
According to Israel Hayom,
The Iranians insisted that any interim deal must recognize their right to enrich uranium, even if the level of purity would be capped at 5%. [Emphasis in original.]
The most the West was willing to offer was to silently acknowledge this right by mentioning Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; although there are so many problematic aspects in Iran’s nuclear program, the world chose to focus on the language of the agreement.
The text of the Preamble seems loud, not silent.
Now that the framework has been agreed upon for what may (or perhaps may not) be a final agreement, the text of the final agreement will have to be constructed and agreed upon. What dragons may lurk there? The parties will have to sign it so that we can find out, cf. ObamaCare. What additional dragons may surface in Iran during the negotiations? Fewer dragons than emerged from the U.S. regulatory morass following the enactment of ObamaCare? That continue to emerge?
According to Swampland-Time, getting the deal done was a strenuous exercise for Secretary Kerry who, despite the great stress and strain he was under, “dashed out once to procure chocolates for his wife.”
But this is not Kerry’s story anymore—it is Barack Obama’s. It’s worth thinking about the long path Obama has trod to get here. When he ran for president in 2008, Obama’s rivals warned he couldn’t be trusted to deal with a nuclearizing Iran. Hillary Clinton would brand him “irresponsible and naïve” for saying he’d meet with Iran’s leader. John McCain later called that a sign of his “inexperience and reckless judgment.”
Six years later, Obama’s Iran policy has the potential to reshape the Middle East and define his legacy. If it proves a success, historians might compare it to Richard Nixon’s breakthrough with China. “If Iran seizes this opportunity,” Obama said in remarks Saturday night, “the Iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community, and we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. This would provide Iran with a dignified path to forge a new beginning with the wider world based on mutual respect.” [Emphasis added.]
But Obama again faces the same charges of naiveté and foolishness that hounded him as a candidate. Never mind that it took real toughness to get here: Iran only came to the bargaining table because Obama imposed punishing sanctions on its economy. His critics say he was desperate for a deal—or a “historic mistake,” as Bibi Netanyahu calls it—that would avoid a potential conflict and give his ailing presidency positive new momentum. It’s still possible those charges will be borne out—if Iran breaks its promises, if the sanctions unravel. It’s also possible that what happened in Geneva was a historic turning point that will allow Obama to put to rest the charge of naiveté once and for all. That would certainly be worth pulling an all nighter for. [Emphasis added.]
I seem to recall that the Congress imposed the sanctions, and that the ObamaAdministration began diminishing them when Iranian President Rouhani was elected in June. But, it’s a good little
lie line and will appeal to Libruls.
According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the deal presents a “win – win” situation.
Lavrov summed up the four-day conference by saying: “Considering the whole body of circumstance, there are no losers [in the Geneva deal], all sides are winners” – a view seriously challenged by Israel, Saudi Arabia and most other Middle East governments.
The positions of Israel, Saudi Arabia and most other Middle East nations have been little considered and generally rejected. For them, Iranian nukes present “merely” existential threats; for President Obama the deal provides an opportunity for political glory. Apparently, the latter is of far greater importance.
This Bill Whittle video is about how the “hammer of reality” is hitting ObamaCare. The hammer of reality will also hit President Obama’s historic deal with Iran. Unfortunately, it will also hit the rest of us.
A hammer of reality eventually struck British PM Chamberlain, who grandly announced “Peace in our time.” President Obama appears likely to suffer a similar fate. Again, so do we. Jennifer Rubin, writing at the Washington Post, commented on the Foolish Iran Deal:
Reaction to the announced interim deal between the “P5+1″ and Iran that allows Iran to continue enrichment up to 5 percent, does not require dismantling — let alone destruction — of centrifuges, leaves all fissile material in Iran and allows it to continue violation of multiple U.N. resolutions bodes ill for West. We are in essence paying Iran $5 billion to $10 billion, which it can use to continue enriching and of course sponsoring terrorists. The communist adage that capitalists would sell them the rope to hang the capitalist is turned on its head; we are now paying our enemies to manufacture the rope.
UPDATE — Israeli PM Netanyahu’s comments on the deal:
Secretary Kerry’s reaction to PM Netanuahu:
When confronted with Netanyahu’s reaction, Kerry defended the deal as “the beginning and first step.”
“It leads us into the negotiation so that we guarantee that while we are negotiating for the dismantling, while we are negotiating for the tougher provisions, they will not grow the program and their capacity to threaten Israel,” he said. “Israel will actually gain a larger breathing space in terms of the breakout capacity of Iran. It’s just clear.” [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps that is “clear” to Secretary Kerry, whose vision is insufficient for competent dealings with the realities of foreign policy — particularly with those who have long demanded the destruction of Israel and other “enemies.”
UPDATE — Ambassador John Bolton characterized the agreement as abject surrender by the U.S.
Negotiations for an “interim” arrangement over Iran’s nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart. After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result. So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” [Emphasis added.]
This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement. Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States. [Emphasis added.]
In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.
Second, Iran has gained legitimacy. This central banker of international terrorism and flagrant nuclear proliferator is once again part of the international club. Much as the Syria chemical-weapons agreement buttressed Bashar al-Assad, the mullahs have escaped the political deep freezer.
Third, Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. While estimates differ on Iran’s precise gain, it is considerable ($7 billion is the lowest estimate), and presages much more. Tehran correctly assessed that a mere six-months’ easing of sanctions will make it extraordinarily hard for the West to reverse direction, even faced with systematic violations of Iran’s nuclear pledges. Major oil-importing countries (China, India, South Korea, and others) were already chafing under U.S. sanctions, sensing President Obama had no stomach either to impose sanctions on them, or pay the domestic political price of granting further waivers.
. . . .
Israel still must make the extremely difficult judgment whether it will stand by as Iran maneuvers effortlessly around a feckless and weak White House, bolstering its economic situation while still making progress on the nuclear front, perhaps less progress on some aspects of its nuclear work than before the deal, but more on others. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[I]n truth, an Israeli military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to nuclear weapons, and the proliferation that will surely follow. Making the case for Israel’s exercise of its legitimate right of self-defense has therefore never been more politically important. Whether they are celebrating in Tehran or in Jerusalem a year from now may well depend on how the opponents of the deal in Washington conduct themselves. [Emphasis added.]
UPDATE: An interesting video — Kerry’s “incoherent defense of deal” on ABC (posted on YouTube by Joseph Wouk):
UPDATE — November 25th
A relatively long, well researched and well presented article was posted today at PJ Media titled Nuke Deal Fiasco Analyses Ignore Iran’s Genocidal Islamic Jew Hatred. Hatred of Jews has long been promoted by Iran and continues under “moderate” President Rouhani, who has bragged of his ability to deceive. Please read the entire article.
UPDATE — November 27th
Iran has, of course, disputed the U.S. position that the P5+1 deal recognizes no Iranian “right” to enrichment and says President Obama and Secretary Kerry are lying.